Letters to the Editor - May 15, 2012

Published: Monday, May 14, 2012 at 11:02 p.m.

Last Modified: Monday, May 14, 2012 at 11:02 p.m.

The majority has spoken in favor of denying same-sex couples the right to marry, amending our constitution to uphold and legalize discrimination and inequity.

Even at the risk of enduring bigotry, no matter how bitter, we participate in the civic activity (some will say "duty") of voting to preserve the integrity of democracy.

And while it may be detestable that bigots can now hide behind democracy's shield, they cannot do so for long. History, legal precedent, morality, ethics and time are not on their side.

They will not give it to us; that is clear. So we will take it, to protect not only ourselves, but those who would use it against us. And democracy.

Karl Richardson, Wilmington

Suffrage and the marriage amendment

Marriage is an age-old tradition observed by two people, generally of the opposite sex. As American society progresses, so too do the rules by which they live. Included in these changes are the opinions of marriage and civil unions, specifically toward the concept of same-sex marriage.

A day ago, I was asked by a woman to "go vote down the same-sex marriage act." …

I find it deeply troubling when an individual suggests that constitutional semantics should never be altered. If definitions could not or should not be altered, the woman asserting her belief would find extreme difficulty voting had the United States Constitution retained the original implication of the word "men" in context to equal creation.

Thankfully, someone altered the definition and she may enjoy the right to vote upon her belief just as I.

Reason eventually will prevail

In light of the embarrassing and ideologically-driven vote for Amendment One, I'd like to offer words of support for the gay community: This vote says much more about them than it does about you.

Just this morning on a news program there was a quote from a supporter that, "we weren't voting against gays; just for marriage." This statement is often used, yet even in court when asked to explain they cannot offer a rational explanation.

As a behavioral scientist with 25 years experience as a marriage and family therapist, I can give no examples of family dysfunction that originated from anything within the gay community.

Your movement for civil rights is young, and yet there has been much progress. Just recently the Pew Research Poll shows 50 percent support for gay marriage in the U.S. North Carolina falls well below that standard, but you must remember that this is the Confederate South, not known for a quick transition for civil rights for all.

If anyone has any doubt as to the near insanity of using perverted religious ideology to support such action, just watch the video of the Fayetteville preacher encouraging child abuse if parents even suspect homosexuality.

Science, reason and humanism will win out.

Nancy K. Bair, Wilmington

No equality under N.C. law

I am disappointed with the Amendment One passage, because it was billed as a marriage amendment and it was not readily evident that it covered all forms of gay partner unions.

I was still against it as a marriage bill, but am angered that it covered the broader forms of unions.

My fellow Christians may disagree with gay unions on religious grounds, but have to see the constitutional and legal fairness in allowing gay partner unions, whether they be marriage or civil unions etc.

This amendment co-opts constitutional fairness for religious grounds.

We are a country founded on equal treatment under the law, and a majority in North Carolina and 29 other states have forgotten that.

<p class="bold allcaps">History will reveal the right choice</p>
<p>The majority has spoken in favor of denying same-sex couples the right to marry, amending our constitution to uphold and legalize discrimination and inequity.</p><p>Even at the risk of enduring bigotry, no matter how bitter, we participate in the civic activity (some will say "duty") of voting to preserve the integrity of democracy.</p><p>And while it may be detestable that bigots can now hide behind democracy's shield, they cannot do so for long. History, legal precedent, morality, ethics and time are not on their side.</p><p>They will not give it to us; that is clear. So we will take it, to protect not only ourselves, but those who would use it against us. And democracy. </p><p><i>Karl Richardson, Wilmington</i></p><h3>Suffrage and the marriage amendment</h3>
<p>Marriage is an age-old tradition observed by two people, generally of the opposite sex. As American society progresses, so too do the rules by which they live. Included in these changes are the opinions of marriage and civil unions, specifically toward the concept of same-sex marriage.</p><p>A day ago, I was asked by a woman to "go vote down the same-sex marriage act." …</p><p>I find it deeply troubling when an individual suggests that constitutional semantics should never be altered. If definitions could not or should not be altered, the woman asserting her belief would find extreme difficulty voting had the United States Constitution retained the original implication of the word "men" in context to equal creation. </p><p>Thankfully, someone altered the definition and she may enjoy the right to vote upon her belief just as I.</p><p><i>Shawn Gordon, <a href="http://www.starnewsonline.com/section/topic9971"><b>Leland</b></a></i></p><h3>Reason eventually will prevail</h3>
<p>In light of the embarrassing and ideologically-driven vote for Amendment One, I'd like to offer words of support for the gay community: This vote says much more about them than it does about you. </p><p>Just this morning on a news program there was a quote from a supporter that, "we weren't voting against gays; just for marriage." This statement is often used, yet even in court when asked to explain they cannot offer a rational explanation. </p><p>As a behavioral scientist with 25 years experience as a marriage and family therapist, I can give no examples of family dysfunction that originated from anything within the gay community.</p><p>Your movement for civil rights is young, and yet there has been much progress. Just recently the Pew Research Poll shows 50 percent support for gay marriage in the U.S. North Carolina falls well below that standard, but you must remember that this is the Confederate South, not known for a quick transition for civil rights for all.</p><p>If anyone has any doubt as to the near insanity of using perverted religious ideology to support such action, just watch the video of the Fayetteville preacher encouraging child abuse if parents even suspect homosexuality.</p><p>Science, reason and humanism will win out.</p><p><i>Nancy K. Bair, Wilmington</i></p><h3>No equality under N.C. law</h3>
<p>I am disappointed with the Amendment One passage, because it was billed as a marriage amendment and it was not readily evident that it covered all forms of gay partner unions.</p><p>I was still against it as a marriage bill, but am angered that it covered the broader forms of unions.</p><p>My fellow Christians may disagree with gay unions on religious grounds, but have to see the constitutional and legal fairness in allowing gay partner unions, whether they be marriage or civil unions etc.</p><p>This amendment co-opts constitutional fairness for religious grounds.</p><p>We are a country founded on equal treatment under the law, and a majority in North Carolina and 29 other states have forgotten that. </p><p><i>Tom Carlin, Wilmington</i></p>